Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ganesh Paliwal vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 May, 2022
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
(1 of 5) [CW-1504/2022]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1504/2022
Ganesh Paliwal S/o Shri Mohan Paliwal, Aged About 46 Years, C/
o 5/46, Shri Nath Colony, Pipli Chouk, Ganesh Nagar, Payda,
Tehsil Girwa, Udaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director General Of Police Cum Commandant, General, Civil
Defence And Home Gurads Department, Headquarter, Jaleb
Chouk, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Additional Director General Of Police Cum Commandant
General, Civil Defence And Home Gurads, Headquarters,
Jaleb Chouk, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The Commandant (Superintendent Of Police), Home Gaurds
Training Centre, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumit Singhal.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vandana Bhansali.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 11/05/2022 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the orders dated 18.10.2021 (Annex.P/2) and 30.11.2021 (Annex.P/4), wherein, the Commandant Home Guards Training Center, Udaipur, had kept the membership of the petitioner pending till investigation pertaining to the involvement of the petitioner in criminal cases and the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the DIG, Home Guards, Rajasthan Jaipur, respectively.
(Downloaded on 12/05/2022 at 08:58:59 PM)
(2 of 5) [CW-1504/2022] It is inter alia indicated in the petition that petitioner is member of the Home Guards since the year 1995 and is being re-enrolled from time to time. When this time the petitioner applied for re-enrollment, on 18.10.2021 an order was passed by the Commandant inter alia indicating that as per the character verification report of the petitioner, received from the police, two criminal cases since 2014 & 2015 were pending against the petitioner and in three cases, he was convicted and that as he proposes to investigate the involvement of the petitioner in the criminal cases, his membership is kept pending.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority.
The appellate authority by its order dated 13.11.2021 passed the order maintaining the order passed by the Commandant and advised the petitioner to approach the respondents for membership once he is acquitted from the criminal cases.
Learned counsel for the petitioner raised several issues including the fact that he was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before passing of the order impugned and that the respondents were not justified in passing the order only on account of pendency of criminal cases against the petitioner and that in cases he has been convicted, he has been given benefit of probation and as such, the said cases could not have been taken into consideration.
Further submissions have been made that the respondents are not justified in supporting the order passed based on the Standing Order issued by the respondents and, therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside. (Downloaded on 12/05/2022 at 08:58:59 PM)
(3 of 5) [CW-1504/2022] Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions with reference to the Standing Order dated 5.10.2021 (Annex.R/2) that the respondents have for the first time introduced the provision for character verification of candidates before their re-enrollment and as on the re-enrollment of the petitioner, it was found that he was facing criminal trials, the order was passed, which cannot be faulted.
Submissions were made that the respondents are well within their right to take a decision based on the fact that the candidate seeking re-enrollment is involved in a criminal cases as to whether looking to the nature of engagement, he should be engaged or not and, therefore, no case for interference is made out.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
Insofar as, the plea raised by the petitioner regarding providing opportunity of hearing before passing of the order dated 18.10.2021 is concerned, the petitioner sought re-enrollment and on character verification, the facts pertaining to pendency of criminal trial and conviction of the petitioner came to the notice of the respondents and the respondents relying on the Standing Order, have passed the order impugned.
Once the order has been passed during proceedings for re-enrollment of the petitioner, it cannot be said that based on the character verification, the respondents, before passing an order based on character verification of the nature passed on 18.10.2021, deciding to investigate the matter, were required to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
However, as the respondents have heavily relied on the Standing Order, the Standing Order pertaining to the character (Downloaded on 12/05/2022 at 08:58:59 PM) (4 of 5) [CW-1504/2022] verification and consequential action thereon, inter-alia, provides as under:-
2- Lo;alsod dk iqu%ukekadu fu.kZ; djus ls igys pfj= lR;kiu ds fy, iqfyl fjiksVZ dk /;kuiwoZd@xgu v/;;u fd;k tkuk pkfg,] rkfd ;g fu/kkZj.k fd;k tk lds fd D;k dksbZ Lo;alsod vkijkf/kd d`R;ksa esa 'kkfey gS] tks foHkkx esa lkekU; O;oLFkk vkSj vuq'kklu ds fy, gkfudkjd gSA t:jr iM+us ij iqfyl ,Q-vkbZ-vkj@pktZ''khV dk Hkh xgurk iwoZd v/;;u fd;k tkuk pkfg,A okLrfod rF;ksa dks tkuus ds fy, rF;kUos"kh tkap Hkh dh tk ldrh gSA rF;ksa dks [kkstus o tkap djus ds fy, le; dh vko';drk gksus ij Lo;alsod dh lnL;rk dks ^^yafcr** j[kk tk ldrk gSA rFkkfi bl izdkj ds rF;kUos"kh tkap@iwNrkN vfuok;Z :i ls ,d i[kokM+ ds Hkhrj iw.kZ dh tkuh pkfg, rkfd okLrfod funksZ"k Lo;alsodksa ds iqu%ukekadu esa dksbZ dfBukbZ@foyac u gksA 3- .......
4- .......
5- tkap ds ckn ;k vU;Fkk] tc Hkh uSfrd v/kerk ls
lacaf/kr vijk/k esa lafyIrrk dk irk pyrk gS] rks ekeys esa vnkyr ds fu.kZ; rd iqu%ukekadu ij fu.kZ; ^^yafcr** j[kk tk ldrk gSA"
A perusal of the above indications made in the Standing Order reveals that the respondents, based on the character verification of the candidates before en-enrollment, can investigate the involvement of the candidate and take a decision in this regard and for the said purpose, his membership can be kept pending. The important provision further reveals that if after the investigation, it is found that the petitioner was involved in offence pertaining to moral turpitude then till the decision on the cases, the re-enrollment can be kept pending.
A perusal of the order dated 18.10.2021 (Annex.P/2) indicates that the Commandant had only passed the order for making an investigation pertaining to the involvement of the petitioner and had kept the membership pending, however, pursuant to the said investigation, no final order has been passed by the Commandant, prior to that the petitioner approached the (Downloaded on 12/05/2022 at 08:58:59 PM) (5 of 5) [CW-1504/2022] appellate authority and the appellate authority apparently without looking into the stage, at which the appeal was filed, has upheld the order and has required the petitioner to apply for re-enrollment once he is acquitted by the criminal court.
However, before the membership on re-enrollment is finally kept pending, based on the involvement in the criminal case, is concerned, the respondents based on Clause-5 (quoted hereinbefore) have to pass a final order, which apparently has not been passed so far.
In that view of the matter, the respondents shall have to first pass order based on the investigation supposed to have been undertaken by them pursuant to order dated 18.10.2021 before finally keeping the membership of the petitioner pending indefinitely / till the decision of the criminal case.
In that view of the matter, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of. The respondent Commandant is directed to pass a final order pursuant to the order dated 18.10.2021 (Annex.P/2) without being influenced by the order dated 30.11.2021 passed on appeal by the Addl. DIG, Home Guards, Rajasthan.
Needful may be done by the competent authority keeping in view the provisions of the Standing Order specially Clause -5 pertaining to the requirement of moral turpitude, within a period of three weeks from the date of this order.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J 31-Sumit/-
(Downloaded on 12/05/2022 at 08:58:59 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)